It's cheaper to not give Obama money for health insurance and mooch off those who do than the other way around. Of course, the value of the procedure remains the same, but if I'm not picking up the bill, it's cheaper for me.

It's cheaper to not give Obama money for health insurance and mooch off those who do than the other way around. Of course, the value of the procedure remains the same, but if I'm not picking up the bill, it's cheaper for me.

It's cheaper to not give Obama money for health insurance and mooch off those who do than the other way around. Of course, the value of the procedure remains the same, but if I'm not picking up the bill, it's cheaper for me.

Serious Black:Garet Garrett: Serious Black: He actually went further than advocating for Romneycare. Jim DeMint advocated for completely universal and mandated coverage, which goes beyond what Romneycare (or Obamacare) does.

That statement was awesome in its unabashed disregard for reality. Well done, sir.

Did you even bother to read the post where I followed up with a snippet of a letter he signed and sent to President Bush AND provided a link to where you can read the whole letter?

You know, it's possible to advocate for comprehensive health care coverage without resorting to government mandates. Which is actually what he did. Otherwise all that stuff about encouraging the states to explore their own ideas, modernizing tax rules, etc. wouldn't have meant anything. His letter amounts to saying "Hey, how about we stop the government from stomping on the collective dick of people and their doctors and see if that makes things better."

But don't think that it's lost on people that no good deed goes unpunished in your book.

IlGreven:Serious Black: Serious Black: He actually went further than advocating for Romneycare. Jim DeMint advocated for completely universal and mandated coverage, which goes beyond what Romneycare (or Obamacare) does.

Since I'm sure somebody will ask for a citation, here's part of a letter he signed and sent to President Bush in 2007:

"We would like to work with [President Bush] and your administration to pass legislation in this Congress that would ensure that all Americans would have affordable, quality, private health coverage, while protecting current government programs. We believe the health care system cannot be fixed without providing solutions for everyone. Otherwise, the costs of those without insurance will continue to be shifted to those who do have coverage."

Key word. The only real change to Obamacare is this word to "public"...but that makes all the difference in the world.

/Private good, Public baaaaaad.//Which is why we let private megacorps get away with things we'd excoriate the eeeeeeeebil gubmint for.

If Republicans were really upset about the whole private versus public issue, they should have been completely on board with Ron Wyden and Bob Bennett's plan that would have abolished Medicaid and put poor people on the private market, much like what Arkansas has provisional approval for from the Obama administration. Instead, Utah's Republicans fired Bob Bennett for heresy.

IlGreven:Serious Black: Serious Black: He actually went further than advocating for Romneycare. Jim DeMint advocated for completely universal and mandated coverage, which goes beyond what Romneycare (or Obamacare) does.

Since I'm sure somebody will ask for a citation, here's part of a letter he signed and sent to President Bush in 2007:

"We would like to work with [President Bush] and your administration to pass legislation in this Congress that would ensure that all Americans would have affordable, quality, private health coverage, while protecting current government programs. We believe the health care system cannot be fixed without providing solutions for everyone. Otherwise, the costs of those without insurance will continue to be shifted to those who do have coverage."

Key word. The only real change to Obamacare is this word to "public"...but that makes all the difference in the world.

/Private good, Public baaaaaad.//Which is why we let private megacorps get away with things we'd excoriate the eeeeeeeebil gubmint for.

No, the reason we let private megacorps get away with things is because they don't have the power of coercion. I don't go to jail if I refuse to shop at WalMart, eat at McDonalds, or buy gas from Shell.

Garet Garrett:No, the reason we let private megacorps get away with things is because they don't have the power of coercion. I don't go to jail if I refuse to shop at WalMart, eat at McDonalds, or buy gas from Shell.

The exception to my rule being, of course, being penalized for refusing to buy private insurance under ObamaCare. But that sorta makes the point.

It's cheaper to not give Obama money for health insurance and mooch off those who do than the other way around. Of course, the value of the procedure remains the same, but if I'm not picking up the bill, it's cheaper for me.

Typical republican, purposely mooching off the system while condemning other people who have no choice for doing the same thing. Bunch of farking hypocrites, the lot of them.

Garet Garrett:No, the reason we let private megacorps get away with things is because they don't have the power of coercion. I don't go to jail if I refuse to shop at WalMart, eat at McDonalds, or buy gas from Shell.

Since I'm sure somebody will ask for a citation, here's part of a letter he signed and sent to President Bush in 2007:

"We would like to work with [President Bush] and your administration to pass legislation in this Congress that would ensure that all Americans would have affordable, quality, private health coverage, while protecting current government programs. We believe the health care system cannot be fixed without providing solutions for everyone. Otherwise, the costs of those without insurance will continue to be shifted to those who do have coverage."

Key word. The only real change to Obamacare is this word to "public"...but that makes all the difference in the world.

/Private good, Public baaaaaad.//Which is why we let private megacorps get away with things we'd excoriate the eeeeeeeebil gubmint for.

No, the reason we let private megacorps get away with things is because they don't have the power of coercion. I don't go to jail if I refuse to shop at WalMart, eat at McDonalds, or buy gas from Shell.

And you can't go to jail if you don't have insurance or pay the tax for not having it. Since you claim to be a lawyer and all, maybe you should actually read up on what the law says. Not like there's dozens of websites that will break it down so even laymen can understand it.

/You'll probably need the layman's explanation, because there is no way you're actually a lawyer.

Garet Garrett:Garet Garrett: No, the reason we let private megacorps get away with things is because they don't have the power of coercion. I don't go to jail if I refuse to shop at WalMart, eat at McDonalds, or buy gas from Shell.

The exception to my rule being, of course, being penalized for refusing to buy private insurance under ObamaCare. But that sorta makes the point.

A great addition to ObamaCare would have been a system where you could register as excepting yourself from having to buy insurance, but if you did register all medical providers would be barred from providing you with medical care unless you could pay cash on the barrelhead.

It's cheaper to not give Obama money for health insurance and mooch off those who do than the other way around. Of course, the value of the procedure remains the same, but if I'm not picking up the bill, it's cheaper for me.

So you're saying you're a deadbeat.

No, I'm Obama didn't think this through and there will be moochers.

There have been moochers all along. There should theoretically be fewer of them due to the mandate. But given the paltry size of the penalty ($95?), some of them will still be there.

Do you not approve of fewer moochers? Or should Obamacare be eliminated due to its lack of perfection?

Alas, an ancient and furious troll has arisen once more to spread derp and feces all over this thread by saying "No, you're wrong" in perpetuity. Jim DeMint, be proud, for your worthless, hypocritical ass has unleashed a monster.

That statement was awesome in its unabashed disregard for reality. Well done, sir.

Did you even bother to read the post where I followed up with a snippet of a letter he signed and sent to President Bush AND provided a link to where you can read the whole letter?

You know, it's possible to advocate for comprehensive health care coverage without resorting to government mandates. Which is actually what he did. Otherwise all that stuff about encouraging the states to explore their own ideas, modernizing tax rules, etc. wouldn't have meant anything. His letter amounts to saying "Hey, how about we stop the government from stomping on the collective dick of people and their doctors and see if that makes things better."

But don't think that it's lost on people that no good deed goes unpunished in your book.

Guess what? ObamaCare does both of those things!

Section 1332 of the law provides states an easy way to opt out of basically all of the state rules and requirements, including both the individual and employer shared responsibility payments; Vermont plans to use this waiver to build a single-payer system for all of its residents. Obama came out in support of Ron Wyden and Scott Brown's proposal to move up the initial date for this waiver from 2017 to 2014, but it went absolutely nowhere.

As for modernizing tax rules, it's laughable to suggest ObamaCare doesn't do that given the pretty extensive attempts to equalize the tax treatment of individual and employer health insurance and make these treatments more helpful to those who have the most difficulty purchasing insurance today.

wozzeck:Garet Garrett: Garet Garrett: No, the reason we let private megacorps get away with things is because they don't have the power of coercion. I don't go to jail if I refuse to shop at WalMart, eat at McDonalds, or buy gas from Shell.

The exception to my rule being, of course, being penalized for refusing to buy private insurance under ObamaCare. But that sorta makes the point.

A great addition to ObamaCare would have been a system where you could register as excepting yourself from having to buy insurance, but if you did register all medical providers would be barred from providing you with medical care. unless you could pay cash on the barrelhead.

People would figure out how to go into massive debt to get the cash. Now your problem is destitute people with debt that's never going to be repaid.

Instead, if you're going for the hard ass answer, if they don't want to participate in healthcare we happily will not let them.

It's cheaper to not give Obama money for health insurance and mooch off those who do than the other way around. Of course, the value of the procedure remains the same, but if I'm not picking up the bill, it's cheaper for me.

Garet Garrett:Serious Black: He actually went further than advocating for Romneycare. Jim DeMint advocated for completely universal and mandated coverage, which goes beyond what Romneycare (or Obamacare) does.

That statement was awesome in its unabashed disregard for reality. Well done, sir.

This is why I resisted commenting here for 10 years. Morons. Please look above where the quote you address is quoted from. Goddamn I hate facts.

Garet Garrett:Serious Black: He actually went further than advocating for Romneycare. Jim DeMint advocated for completely universal and mandated coverage, which goes beyond what Romneycare (or Obamacare) does.

That statement was awesome in its unabashed disregard for reality. Well done, sir.

The so-called public university that I attended taught that all property is theft. But that has different implications, doesn't it?

But no, I don't believe that taxation is theft. But you don't have to be a hard-core libertarian to believe that all government action, including taxation, is inherently coercive, as it's always done with the background threat of force (what happens if you don't get a permit to fix your septic system? and then refuse to pay the fine?). Likewise, that that's the key difference between cooperative action on the so-called private level and cooperative action on the so-called public level. If you have a more basic distinction, I'd love to hear it.

Corvus:This coming from you who said it was ok to lie to make a point.

See, and that's why it's not nice to put words in other people's mouths. If using sarcasm now equals "lying is ok," I think we have to set that aside as an argument around here as being too universal for comment.

My mother is the one in my family who actually tried this "ER's are required to treat them; why not just go there?" soundbite that's been circulating for about 20 years now. I replied, "Because there's no such thing as emergency chemotherapy."

Have you ever actually SEEN a paradigm shifting without a clutch? We throw around the phrase "cognitive dissonance" a lot, but watching someone's entire belief system come crashing down in a few seconds really is a marvel to see.

Usually, what you get is some sort of "backfire effect," where the person debating the point immediately whips up a rationale so that they don't have to experience that discomfort, and wind up clinging to their beliefs even more tightly. But Republican defense of the current health care system, in the face of overwhelming evidence, is so brittle, so fragile, so desperate that the only defense they have is "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

I didn't even have to add my other soundbites: that our current medical system boils down to "kill the unworthy," that those who can't pay wind up subsidized by those who can so it's sort of socialized anyway, or that she's advocating a sort of economic triage where people with medical issues avoid dealing with them until they become more expensive, adding further burdens to the system. I know it's probably wrong to debate this way - dueling bumper stickers - but it shouldn't be this EASY. I'm not saying Mother became a staunch defender of Obamacare, but it's pretty clear that she has no idea what to think about it now. She had other people doing her thinking for her for the longest time, and it was nice and comfy and cozy. Now she's just confused.

There was an interesting article in the Post the other day which suggested that since the ACA contains such a broad range of policies and since Republicans have committed to the tack of not supporting any policy which shares common ground with it, this basically leaves them in the position of rejecting the entire concept of insurance and supporting cash-only medical care.

Stile4aly:There was an interesting article in the Post the other day which suggested that since the ACA contains such a broad range of policies and since Republicans have committed to the tack of not supporting any policy which shares common ground with it, this basically leaves them in the position of rejecting the entire concept of insurance and supporting cash-only medical care.

And let's hope that leaves them dumped on the landfill of history in short order.

Garet Garrett:Serious Black: Guess what? ObamaCare does both of those things!

So what? Your assertion was that he advocated for universal coverage that went BEYOND either ObamaCare or RomneyCare.

So DeMint opposed ObamaCare because it didn't go far enough? He didn't oppose it because it was the biggest unconstitutional breach of liberty that the American government has ever implemented? That's news to me.

Serious Black:Serious Black: He actually went further than advocating for Romneycare. Jim DeMint advocated for completely universal and mandated coverage, which goes beyond what Romneycare (or Obamacare) does.

Since I'm sure somebody will ask for a citation, here's part of a letter he signed and sent to President Bush in 2007:

"We would like to work with [President Bush] and your administration to pass legislation in this Congress that would ensure that all Americans would have affordable, quality, private health coverage, while protecting current government programs. We believe the health care system cannot be fixed without providing solutions for everyone. Otherwise, the costs of those without insurance will continue to be shifted to those who do have coverage."

So, when Bush was President, he hated the idea of 'free riders' so much so that he hoped that a comprehensive program for healthcare could be put together. But now that we have Pres. Obama, he thinks we need to go back to the allowing the 'free riders' to exist, and thinks it's a good idea?

Skanque:Ring of Fire: My wife is a nurse at a hospital emergency room. The amount of people that come in for bullshiat because the ER has to treat them is unreal. It slows down the EMERGENCY room and people that really need treatment cant get it. Her hospital is currently laying off people because they lost $30mil last year. The amount of unpaid ER bills was over $150 mil.Republicans think this is a fantastic system. It's not.

The last time I had to go to the emergency room (about 7 year ago), I was amazed at how long I had to wait to get my gaping hand wound stitched up. "It's cool guy, just wait here and stare inside your hand at the fancy tendons and muscle. Consider it an educational experience."

If Jim DeMint gets his way, I can have an even more educational experience while waiting behind the uninsured guy with a hamster up his butt.

Agreed.

The The last time I was in the ER was for severe dehydration. I'm normally incredibly thin but my stomach was so swollen that I looked severely pregnant. I couldn't keep anything down. My stomach was so sore that I couldn't stand up or sit comfortably so I'd pace. I waited in the ER for several hours until my blood pressure bottomed out. They couldn't get a read but, having no beds, they stashed me in a private waiting room with morphine and a banana bag.

Greetings Confirmed Birther troll account created at the height of the Zimmerman trial, would you care to back up your assertions with some citations today, or was this just you shiatting the thread again?

Serious Black:Serious Black: He actually went further than advocating for Romneycare. Jim DeMint advocated for completely universal and mandated coverage, which goes beyond what Romneycare (or Obamacare) does.

Since I'm sure somebody will ask for a citation, here's part of a letter he signed and sent to President Bush in 2007:

"We would like to work with [President Bush] and your administration to pass legislation in this Congress that would ensure that all Americans would have affordable, quality, private health coverage, while protecting current government programs. We believe the health care system cannot be fixed without providing solutions for everyone. Otherwise, the costs of those without insurance will continue to be shifted to those who do have coverage."

What is his reply when he's confronted with these words that he said, and the policies he previously advocated?

Stile4aly:There was an interesting article in the Post the other day which suggested that since the ACA contains such a broad range of policies and since Republicans have committed to the tack of not supporting any policy which shares common ground with it, this basically leaves them in the position of rejecting the entire concept of insurance and supporting cash-only medical care.

Huggermugger:Serious Black: Serious Black: He actually went further than advocating for Romneycare. Jim DeMint advocated for completely universal and mandated coverage, which goes beyond what Romneycare (or Obamacare) does.

Since I'm sure somebody will ask for a citation, here's part of a letter he signed and sent to President Bush in 2007:

"We would like to work with [President Bush] and your administration to pass legislation in this Congress that would ensure that all Americans would have affordable, quality, private health coverage, while protecting current government programs. We believe the health care system cannot be fixed without providing solutions for everyone. Otherwise, the costs of those without insurance will continue to be shifted to those who do have coverage."

What is his reply when he's confronted with these words that he said, and the policies he previously advocated?

Probably pulling down his pants, punching the person in the face, and jumping out of the nearest window.

And let's see what the Heritage Foundation had to say about the individual mandate when it.....wait for it....first proposed the individual mandate:

Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.

This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is the family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services-even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.

A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself...

A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection, which would end the problem of middle-class "free riders" on society's sense of obligation.